Postscript to Debunking the myths of non-verbal communication

by Ian · 4 comments

My post on debunking the myths of non-verbal communication has been picked up by a lot of google searches for “percentage non-verbal communication”, “what % of communication is non-verbal” and the like.

For those who haven’t read the original article, have a look and you’ll find that the often quoted figure of 93% is just pure hokum (well, it’s an accurate figure for one very specific example taken repeatedly way out of context).

For those keen to understand what the “real” figures are for the percentage of communication that’s non-verbal – have a think about it for a second.

Really, the question is meaningless.

What does “percentage of communication” actually mean? Do you mean the percentage of the actual message that was heard and understood? Or do you mean the percentage of intended emotion that got through? The concept of a “percentage of communication” is so oversimplified that it ceases to have meaning.

In addition, there are so many different types of communication that it’s impossible to give a single figure or average that has any meaning. Even if you could figure out a “percentage of communication that was non-verbal” it would be so radically different for example, for a lecture on mathematics to an impassioned speech on third-world poverty that to give an overall figure would be misleading.

So here’s my answer anyway:

Q: What percentage of communication is non-verbal?

A: More than most people think, but less than trainers in non-verbal communication would have you believe.

Onward!

Ian

Tagged as: Communication, communication myths, non-verbal

by Ian on 24 January 2008 · 4 comments

{ 1 trackback }

Debunking the myths of non-verbal communication | Ian Brodie: 27 June 2009 at 12:41 am

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Rachel 26 February 2008 at 2:36 am: Great post.

A percentage of communication received makes sense if you’re dealing with something discrete (kilobytes of data, morse code, or a TV picture).
But human communication is so diverse and multifaceted (and composed of both the conscious and unconscious messages, some of which are contradictory) that I think it is impossible to reduce to a number.

Thanks again for your blog.
John Sumser 22 April 2009 at 2:38 am: I agree with Rachel’s comment. I teach in a Communication Studies department and, unfortunately, many faculty members and textbooks repeat these nonsensical percentage claims.

People seem to think it sounds more sciency to say that 93 percent of communication is nonverbal than to say, wow, isn’t nonverbal comm interesting and important?
Ian Brodie 22 April 2009 at 9:06 am: Agreed John (& Rachel). I feel very uncomforable when I see percentages and statistics quoted without a source – and if I see the source I’ll check it out. It’s shocking just how many times the statistic is being misrepresented – all to make something seem more scientific. And it’s then even more surprising how the misrepresentation can snowball via repetition into something huge like the 93% stat. Mehrabian has spoken many times of this misrepresentation and tried to correct understanding of his findings – but it’s got a life of it’s own now!

Ian